Over the past few days, people have been talking quite a bit about Gen. Petraeus' comments indicating that he sees US forces in Iraq for years, perhaps even decades, to come. September, he cautioned, should be seen as the beginning, not the end, of the mission in Iraq.
Predictably, the reaction from the liberal blogosphere has been quite negative. John Edwards has joined the criticism, suggesting it is "yet another example of the Bush Administration’s disconnect from the reality on the ground." But I have to be honest - I think most people are missing the point on this.
Gen. Petraeus is not "the Bush administration." He is an active duty general who has been ordered by the Bush administration to carry out a very specific mission: counterinsurgency. You may or may not agree with those orders, but from his point of view that is entirely irrelevant. Those are his orders, and he must follow them to the best of his ability. Moreover, he is right: counterinsurgency is not something that can be won in a matter of months. Gen. Petraeus is simply being honest about that. Given that such honesty helps clarify the terms of debate, you would think the war's opponents would welcome his candor.
Now I don't mean to suggest that Petraeus did not have Washington, DC, politics in mind when he made his comments. Petraeus is by all accounts a very smart man, and he clearly knows that many in DC have set September as an arbitrary make or break deadline. After September, its quite likely that the political pressure for a drawdown will build to a point where it can no longer be avoided. Irregardless of the military situation, it is quite likely that the surge will at that point be deemed a political failure. And sadly, the question for war supporters at that point becomes "who to blame?"
One option available will be to blame those opposed to the war. The problem with that, however, is that a very sizable majority of the American public is in that group. I just don't see that one sticking. A second option would be to blame the military. Had they given better advice, or executed the mission with greater skill, the argument might go, perhaps success would have been found sooner. Recognizing that attacking foot soldiers never makes good politics, any criticism will have to be leveled at the generals in Iraq.
Petraeus honesty makes that far more difficult. Supporters of the surge have for months claimed that Petraeus has the right strategy, and that if he were only given time he would be able to turn Iraq into a success. The problem for them, however, is that from the start the surge was sold as a short term solution. Being an expert in counterinsurgency warfare, Petraeus always knew that was ridiculous, and now that people are asking him, he's simply being honest about it.
In short, I think Petraeus' comments do nothing but hurt the Bush administration. The general they've set up as an expert beyond criticism has now made clear that their policy is one that the American people simply will not accept. And come September, there's nothing they are going to be able to do about that.
If you ask me, its about time the generals started getting honest with the public.
UPDATE: And what about the inevitable claims by war supporters that they were "stabbed in the back" by disloyal Americans?
The problem with that, I think, is that the timeframe laid out for success by Petraeus makes that virtually impossible to pull off in a way that will make sense to anything even remotely resembling a majority of Americans. It would be one thing if supporters were asking for another 6 months to a year. But 10 to 15 years? Who, aside from the most diehard supporters, would be willing to buy into that?
Give Americans the truth and let them make up their minds. That's all I've ever asked for. I'm glad someone has finally decided to play along.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
